Phonological Awareness Tasks

as Predictors of Decoding Ability:

Beyond Segmentation

Orna Lenchner, Michael M. Gerber, and Donald K. Routh

ABSTRACT

The performance of 38 male third- and fourth-grade reading disabled/poor decoders and above-average readers/good decoders was compared on a series of six measures of phonological awareness, including tasks that required the ability to segment, blend, and manipulate phonemes. Performance on these tasks was also correlated with phonetic decoding of pseudowords. Significant but varying intercorrelations were obtained among tasks in both groups. For the poor decoders, deletion was the most highly correlated with the other tasks. However, all good decoders performed at ceiling level on this task. For the poor decoders, deletion was significantly correlated with phonetic decoding (r «. 74 and r =. 78 for timed and untimed decoding measures, respectively). While all good decoders had good phonological awareness, not all those with good phonological awareness were good decoders. The results suggest that tasks that require blending and manipulation of phonemes, in addition to segmentation, may predict decoding ability best.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, the results of this study suggest that deletion of a consonant is the most valid of the various measures of phonological awareness utilized here; it correlated most highly with other phonological awareness tasks and with measures of phonetic decoding. When a consonant deletion task is inappropriate, substitution may be the second best measure. However, even with the high correlations obtained between deletion and phonetic decoding, there are several ways in which the tasks can possibly be altered to address some unanswered questions. First, it would be important to reduce the possibility that subjects were using some kind of a spelling strategy in their performance, through the use of either pseudowords or words that do not follow predictable spelling patterns. Second, latency measures of time to respond may The high correlation obtained between consonant deletion and substitution and phonetic decoding confirms other findings in the literature to suggest that phonemic awareness is a prerequisite of phonetic decoding. In order to evaluate this hypothesis further, individual scores were examined, and all of the students with good decoding skill were found to be good at the deletion and substitution tasks. However, not all of those who were good at deletion and substitution were good at decoding. Phonological awareness is probably necessary for decoding, but it is not sufficient.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Orna Lenchner received her PhD in special education from the University of California, Santa Barbara, and completed a postdoctoral research fellowship at the Mailman Center for Child Development. University of Miami. Her recent research on phonological awareness in individuals with mental retardation. Michael M. Gerber is a professor of special education at the University of California. Santa Barbara. Donald K. Routh is a professor of psychology at the University of Miami,. Address- Donald K. Routh. Department of Psychology. University of Miami.